Posted by jrd_x on 5/24/2012 1:46:00 PM (view original):
You can strongly believe that all you want, it has no factual basis in law.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/24/2012 1:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/24/2012 11:59:00 AM (view original):
No, I do believe that prop 8 violates the 14th amendment in the same way that banning interracial marriage violated the 14th amendment.

I find any Constitutional claim to be questionable for a social issue.

Interracial marriage was overturned because it played into a larger issue of White Supremacy.

In the decision on interracial marriage the institution of marraige was defeined as being central to our survival, That isnt the case in SSMs as it does not lead to procreation

I strongly believe that for the federal government to overturn the will of the people of a state a clear harm must be shown to impact society as a whole. That does not exist here.

Posted by micki on 5/24/2012 12:24:00 PM (view original):
I am not gay, have never been gay, nor ever considered another man in that fashion.  That being said, if there was no pre-nup, I might consider marrying Bill Gates.

I think I can take a little uncomforatable - ness for lots of money.  Did anybody notice - does Bill Gates have big hands ?

Posted by micki on 5/24/2012 3:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by micki on 5/24/2012 12:24:00 PM (view original):
I am not gay, have never been gay, nor ever considered another man in that fashion.  That being said, if there was no pre-nup, I might consider marrying Bill Gates.

I think I can take a little uncomforatable - ness for lots of money.  Did anybody notice - does Bill Gates have big hands ?

I nominate myself for post-of-the-day honors. can I get a little thumbs up love out there ?

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/24/2012 2:47:00 PM (view original):
The original case dealing with race identified 2 issues.

1 The laws were based on maintaining white supremacy
2 Marraige was considered crucial to maintain society.

I think the issue of SSM falls short on both counts.

Posted by micki on 5/24/2012 3:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by micki on 5/24/2012 12:24:00 PM (view original):
I am not gay, have never been gay, nor ever considered another man in that fashion.  That being said, if there was no pre-nup, I might consider marrying Bill Gates.

I think I can take a little uncomforatable - ness for lots of money.  Did anybody notice - does Bill Gates have big hands ?

I nominate myself for post-of-the-day honors. can I get a little thumbs up love out there ?

Posted by jrd_x on 5/24/2012 4:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/24/2012 2:47:00 PM (view original):
The original case dealing with race identified 2 issues.

1 The laws were based on maintaining white supremacy
2 Marraige was considered crucial to maintain society.

I think the issue of SSM falls short on both counts.

Have you read the decision?

"Thus, the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race."

Sounds a lot like arguments made against allowing same sex marriage.  "Everyone can get married, they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex."

"The Equal Protection Clause requires the consideration of whether the classifications drawn by any statute constitute an arbitrary and invidious discrimination"

"if they [laws banning interracial marriage] are ever to be upheld, they must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective"

There needs to be a compelling reason to enforce the ban.  The burden is on the state.

"Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

Posted by tecwrg on 5/23/2012 8:28:00 AM (view original):
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Second Amendment rights in the case of "District of Columbia vs. Heller" in 2008.

An interesting part of their ruling was:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:"

Now take that statement and apply it to marriage.  The "right" to marriage is not unlimited.  It does not necessarily mean that anybody can marry anybody else, i.e. same-sex marriage.

Here is the specific Supreme Court ruling.  At the top of page 55, they say:

"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms.   Miller  said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179.  We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

So again with respect to rights (such as marriage), limitations based on historic tradition are OK.

Sounds like this discussion can be

CLOSED.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/24/2012 4:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/24/2012 2:47:00 PM (view original):
The original case dealing with race identified 2 issues.

1 The laws were based on maintaining white supremacy
2 Marraige was considered crucial to maintain society.

I think the issue of SSM falls short on both counts.

Have you read the decision?

"Thus, the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race."

Sounds a lot like arguments made against allowing same sex marriage.  "Everyone can get married, they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex."

"The Equal Protection Clause requires the consideration of whether the classifications drawn by any statute constitute an arbitrary and invidious discrimination"

"if they [laws banning interracial marriage] are ever to be upheld, they must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective"

There needs to be a compelling reason to enforce the ban.  The burden is on the state.

"Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."